Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JamesV6CDX]

I have lodged a case in the Small Claims court against a local garage and MOT testing station. I've done it more as a matter of principle, than to recoup the cost, because they blatantly tried to rip me off.

I took our 2011 Astra for MOT last week. I made my request clear - "Please can you do an MOT test, and let me know the result". He told me the MOT would be at 10am the next morning. I left the car with them, so they had it first thing next day.

I checked the MOT History website at around 10am and it had already been done. A years pass, with advisories for a bulb, and the rear brake pads "wearing thin".

I thought "Great, I'll go and get it later" and thought no more of it.

About 3pm, call from the garage "We're just finishing up doing your rear brakes, they needed doing, to get through the MOT test. Car will be ready for you in half an hour".

So I got myself down there in a flash. The car was not in the workshop, but parked behind other cars, stone cold.

I went into "reception" and spoke to the only staff member I could see, the stereotypical spotty Yoof.

I asked him the obvious questions:

1) If it needed brake pads to get through the MOT, how come it went through the MOT with an advisory?

2) If I needed brake pads to get through - why isn't there one result which is a failure, and then a further result for the re-test where the pass is then issued?

3) If it needed brake pads to pass the MOT, how come the MOT pass was issued at 10am, and you phoned me at 3 to say you were still doing the brake pads?

4) Why didn't you call me to discuss any work needed, because I haven't authorised anything you've done, apart from the MOT?

He looked like he didn't even understand the purpose of my questions, let alone have the ability to answer them. He just kept repeating "You'll have to speak to the boss but he aint here. No cash no car"

I begrudgingly paid the bill using a card, because I know I can't take the car legally until I have (the law is an ass sometimes). I also refused to sign the invoice as they asked, and took my unsigned copy with me. Interestingly, in the signature box, it says "I authorise the above work to be undertaken" which of course I never did.

I emailed the garage my questions that night, and the boss called me the next day. I was driving and he left a voicemail. It was basically a load of abusive hot air,  borderline criminally abusive, where I was basically told to go forth and multiply and wouldn't be getting anything back.

So I've taken it straight to small claims - exhibiting his voicemail digitally, so the Judge can hear for himself why my attempt to sort it informally didn't work.

I've asked for a partial refund - the labour charge for doing the pads (I'd have never agreed to pay that, I'd have done it myself) plus the difference between the extortionate amount the garage charged me for the pads, vs what I would have paid for them had I purchased them online to fit myself.

All of course backed with the appropriate evidence.

We shall await the outcome!

[JamesV6CDX]

I should add. Loads of reviews online to say they do unauthorised work. Often to female customers.

[Andy B]

Does the garage know what you do (did?) for a living?

[Doctor Gollum]

Did they actually change the pads?

[Andy B]

I had a motorbike place do similar. They did the 1st MOT on scooter I had & changed the pads because they said they were worn. A few years later, giving them the benefit of doubt they did the same to my TDM when I took it for its MOT. I told them I wouldn't be back & never have.

[Lizzie Zoom]

Yes James, these rouge garages are still out there that is for sure.  Even my favourite, “trusted” garages can let me down and try it on, but fortunately not do what yours did and actually do the job. 3 years ago they did my MOT ( I often used to alternate between my Vx dealer and them). They advised that the brake pipes were severely corroded. I did not believe it, so would not authorise the work.

As soon as possible I got under my car, checked all the pipes, could not see any “severe corrosion” so just cleaned them all up and sprayed them with a protector.  Next year went back to Vx for my MOT; full pass and no advisories.  Nor has there been since about any pipe corrosion!

So, yes, like with Kwikfittup, there are certainly those trying to create business!

All the best with your claim James.  I know you understand the law, but just one point you didn’t cover.  Have you served them with a letter of legal intent, with a specified period for a response?  In civil law that is a requirement, and in my experience has always brought me the results I demanded before we had to go to court.  Last time £950+ back from my Vx dealer for a faulty “out of warranty” a/c compressor.

All the best

[dave the builder]

In order to enter the data and register a pass on the VTS device (MOT computer) the NT (nominated tester) would need to be logged on the VTS device as doing an MOT test ,and enter the brake test results (which must be within the range/tolerance to pass) ,visual inspection of brake thickness during the MOT should have been noted on the sheet if below minimum tolerance, along with any other "faults" found .
when logged on to the VTS device ,during a test , the NT is not allowed to do repairs or adjustments ,just follow the test procedure . any faults MUST be entered on the VTS device , and if that results in an MOT fail ,it MUST be recorded as such .
any required work can then be done (with the presenter's permission)
then the NT should log on to the VTS device , do a partial retest ,and enter the results on the device ,and issue either a pass or another fail . I say that because , in the case where brake or suspension components etc are changed , a new brake test should be done .
In this case ,the garage will say "we tested the car first thing ,the car passed first test, there was some confusion ,mix up ,miscommunication and brake pads and a bulb got fitted by mistake later"
If they don't use that defence then they admit deliberate disregard for test procedure ,which would leave them open to sanctions from DVSA .

"spotty youth fall guy" will get the blame , it's up to the SCC "judge" to decide IF a part refund is "appropriate"

as a matter of principle , "unauthorised work being done"  I agree with James 100% 

the time and cost and hassle of bringing a SCC claim ,not so much 

DVSA could/should be notified of the "deviation from test procedure" but if the garage / test station has history ,they will also have excuses and lies in place as to what went wrong ,probably already have sanctions in place.
 (sanctions = it's like a points system ,similar to a driving licence )

Best of luck 
 

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

I encountered an MOT problem with a Mazda RX8 owned by Mrs Opti.

It failed the first fast idle test. Not unusual.

For the second fast idle test the test sheet simply read 'NOT DONE'.

The MOT garage insisted the car had failed I argued the test procedures had not been followed and it  was therefore a 'non-test'.

I contacted VOSA who agreed with me. Full MOT refund plus £100 of compo.


The car sailed through its MOT at another garage using the Italian tune up method on the way to the test centre.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Which Mrs Opti ? Istr there have been quite a few. 
Is the current version the one who throws laptops or is there a new one now ?   

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Which Mrs Opti ? Istr there have been quite a few. 
Is the current version the one who throws laptops or is there a new one now ?   

It was either number 2 or number 3.

[ronnyd]

Which Mrs Opti ? Istr there have been quite a few. 
Is the current version the one who throws laptops or is there a new one now ?   

It was either number 2 or number 3.

Christ,  one's more than enough. 

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

He should be old enough to know better. 

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

He should be old enough to know better. 

I identify as 34.

[Doctor Gollum]

He should be old enough to know better. 

How's that going for you

I identify as 34.

[Nick W]

He should be old enough to know better. 

I identify present as 34 months.

FTFY

[JamesV6CDX]

Does the garage know what you do (did?) for a living?

It’s do as opposed to did (17 years now!). I won’t be there forever but currently still serving. I left Uniform a few years ago and went into the detective arena with a focus on fraud, high level drug supply and sexual offences.

But the garage don’t need to know this and it would be inappropriate of me to say so. I’m just a member of the community who is pissed off with a garage trying to fleece me.

The MOT tester has emailed me tonight after the business have received my claim. I’ll update the forum later or in morning as I’m just off out

 

[JamesV6CDX]

the time and cost and hassle of bringing a SCC claim ,not so much 

I agree in principle but that’s what these shady bastards rely on.

I don’t even care if it costs more than I gain. They’ve fleeced lots of local people and now they’ve got the wrong one.

[Raeturbo]

Does the garage know what you do (did?) for a living?

It’s do as opposed to did (17 years now!). I won’t be there forever but currently still serving. I left Uniform a few years ago and went into the detective arena with a focus on fraud, high level drug supply and sexual offences.

But the garage don’t need to know this and it would be inappropriate of me to say so. I’m just a member of the community who is pissed off with a garage trying to fleece me.

The MOT tester has emailed me tonight after the business have received my claim. I’ll update the forum later or in morning as I’m just off out

                  I’ll look forward to that👍

[dave the builder]

the time and cost and hassle of bringing a SCC claim ,not so much 

I agree in principle but that’s what these shady bastards rely on.

I don’t even care if it costs more than I gain. They’ve fleeced lots of local people and now they’ve got the wrong one.

I hope your actions do make the garage change their ways ,and that you get suitably compensated ,

Not enough people can be bothered to make a stand against fraud, theft and injustice 
Sadly police don't have the money or bodies , and the CPS and courts are only interested if it's a guaranteed 100% win 
putting Joe public off the idea of even bothering to report crime anymore , let alone pursue a claim/case . 
leaving the criminals to destroy people's lives and what was once a "GREAT " Britain .

[Kevin Wood]

Have you reported the MOT centre to VOSA / DVSA / whatever bit of the DFT runs them these days as well?

I'm sure they'll be interested...

[Doctor Gollum]

Did they actually change the pads? 

[dave the builder]

Did they actually change the pads? 

Or the "bulb" 
because a bulb tends to work or not = pass or fail 
the exceptions being "multiple bulbs in number plate lights ,(pass and advise )
indicator bulbs not showing orange (because the coating has come off)   fail   

[JamesV6CDX]

Brief update only, because I’m up early.

I’ve got an email but it’s from the MOT tester himself - personally, and not the garage as such.

He’s said that’s he “as an individual got it wrong” and as such is prepared to pay my whole bill from his own pocket to settle and close the court case.

To me this smacks of the manager exploiting him and “taking it out of his wages” to gloss over the fact the garage themselves have ripped me off.

It would be very easy for me to take the money now and mark the case as satisfied on the online court portal.

But my moral compass tells me I should decline his offer because my claim is against his employer and not any individual employee.

I also think I should further exhibit his messages to the court, to show how the owner is trying to throw his staff under the bus, despite the fact he is clearly unscrupulous.

[Doctor Gollum]

Have they not heard of GDPR Actually quite a serious breach.

And did they actually change the pads?

[JamesV6CDX]

And did they actually change the pads?

I’m planning to have a proper look at their work on Monday, sadly I’m flat out until then

[dave the builder]

Do a search on Companies house ,the "tester" may be the Garage owner 

If i worked as a lorry driver and my boss said "drive that lorry with 10 bald tyres ", I have a choice ,
it's my driving licence , my tacho card i'm using , if i decide to to do it 

The tester put his VOSA card in the VTS device's reader, entered his log-in ,
OR...
he allowed someone else too 

"car not present during test" = car was still in the car park ,or elsewhere when the test was performed is a thing 
Log on as doing a test ,get a spotty  youth trainee to check the lights ,belts ,tyres etc , give the car a once over later in the day when the ramp is clear . fix fails, charge presenter for work .


Why ?   
Because the tester has to log on to the VTS to do a test , and a test is expected to last 30-45 mins and it's time stamped on the system .

Is that the case here    I couldn't possibly comment      
 

[Doctor Gollum]

And the garage has no business passing your information to it's staff for ANY purpose without your express, written consent.

If they gave the tester your email address, did they also give someone else your actual address or phone number or card number

[JamesV6CDX]

I responded to the garage and made it clear that the MOT tester was not personally liable for settling my claim - it had to be the garage (or the proprietor) paying, because it was the garage I logged the case against.

I also replied to the MOT tester, (CC'ing the garage) thanking him for his offer,  but declining it because the garage must pay. In the same email I told him to seek employment or trade union advice if his employer employed the unlawful practice of docking his pay for his "mistake".

A full refund has been issued back to my card, today, by the garage, plus the £35 court fee.

In terms of time / cost, don't ever be concerned about going to small claims court if you think your case is strong.

It was a walk in the park to log the case, and all done online. Also, if you win, you get your court fee paid by the defendant - as I have in this case.

What people don't realise is that in the small claims court, your case doesn't have to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt, like the criminal standard - simply the "balance of probabilities" which in reality means, it's more likely than not you are telling the truth. So, if the court think there's a 51% chance you're in the right, that will sway it your favour.

[Rangie]

What an excellent result & well deserved 👍

[Sir Tigger KC]

Well done James! 

[ronnyd]

Well done for sticking with it, great result for you and honesty.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Unfortunately though, the garage will carry on as normal. I suspect the offer from the employee was via the owner, trying to avoid the legal route.
It didnt work so now he has sorted it himself directly to avoid going legal.

[Shackeng]

Exactly, avoids publicity.

[STEMO]

Good result, James, I would like to think he will change his ways, but I doubt it.

[dave the builder]

Well done 

Will you be taking it to HalFRAUD's next year            

[Doctor Gollum]

I guess it now doesn't matter if they changed the pads or not

[Andy B]

Well done 

[Raeturbo]

Good, main thing is you don’t feel cheated and have put a spanner in the works of this jerks garage👍